Skip to main content

View Diary: The libertarian Democrat, revisited (229 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  no, but yes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    In her own Voice

    I would vote for the Senate HCR bill if I had to vote yes or no-- I think the costs of inaction are just too great-- and yet I think this essay gets the political climate just right: it gives one reason why so many people who voted Dem in 2006 and 2008, from very liberal Kossacks to swing voters in Colorado, really dislike the bill. Dems do need to "reclaim the message of personal freedom."

    At the margins, that is. The biggest determinant of how well we can restrict our losses in 2010 and how well we can do in 2012 is still going to be the economy: some people who feel worse off are going to vote against the party in power no matter what else happens. And by "some" I mean "enough to swing elections."

    •  Note (0+ / 0-)

      The Senate bill would just put an increasing drag on the economy. To the degree it succeeded, it would force more people to buy into for-profit insurance. This does nothing to decrease per capita costs, so the result is a net increase.

      The economy is already suffering from having healthcare costs over 17% of GDP. With this bill it could go to 18, 19 or even 20%. Every extra dollar is one less for food, clothing, housing, transportation and all the other necessities of life.

      I agree that the main determinant of how well incumbents (chiefly Democrats) do in the next few years is the economy. Unfortunately, the Senate bill is a big boat anchor on the economy. They need to re-work it to get rid of the mandates and include some kind of public option (which has a hope of bringing down costs), just as a survival mechanism for challenged Democrats.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site